Can anyone name some tax court cases upholding the importance of an updated plan document? Please give specific citations if not inconvenient.

I doubt that you would find such cases in Tax Court, they would have been resolved before that stage.

I also doubt that you would find any anywhere else, since the lawsuit would not be based on the issue of being updated but rather on a particular feature such as vesting rights, eligibility etc.

Attardo v. Commissioner, TC Memo 1991-357, 62 TCM 313 (August 1, 1991)

John U. Fazi, 102 T.C. 695 (May 19, 1994)

Hamlin Development, TC Memo 1993-89, 65 TCM 2071 (March 15, 1993)

Pawlak, TC Memo 1995-7, 69 TCM 1603 (January 10, 1995)

Stark Truss Company, Inc., TC Memo 1991-329, 62 TCM 169 (July 17, 1991)

Mortenson Roofing, TC Memo 1992-112, 63 TCM 2186 (February 24, 1992)

Mills, Mitchell & Turner, TC Memo 1993-99, 65 TCM 2127 (March 23, 1993)

Joseph P. Clawson, M.D., Inc., P.S., TC Memo 1993-174, 65 TCM 2452 (April 19, 1993)

Basch Engineering, TC Memo 1990-212, 59 TCM 482 (April 25, 1990)

Weddel, TC Memo 1996-36, 71 TCM 1950 (January 30, 1996)

Clendenen, TC Memo 2003-32 (February 12, 2003)\

Robert W. Smith v. National Credit Union Administration Board, 8^th Cir. 1994 (#93-6737)

I take it it wasn't inconvenient . . . !!

WoW!

That is some research capability. I hope that access is available on the TC website since my subscriptions to many online services have lapsed.

TC website? No. Convenient? At this time, yes. I simply extracted those from an opinion letter I was asked to prepare in May 2004. An employer had terminated during the remedial amendment period without updating for interim amendments and a restatement. The employer was caught on audit, and the penalties proposed were steep. When contacted by the professional that was advising the employer in the audit, I was aware of the Basch Engineering case due to a similar situation I handled in 1992, and so told them they were probably toast. They wanted me to research and give them an opinion letter--I told them I did not think it would be of much use, but they wanted it. (As you might guess, they had hoped there would be more caselaw going the other way.)